Talk:Great War II
Do we still want anon users to edit these pages? I hate to beat a dead horse here but semi-protection seems in order for the time being. Salpta 18:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC) :No. This article needs to be constanlty updated with links to the correct places so after the war is over, everything can be sorted out. J Andres 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC) :Nope, if we want the cyberverse to use the wiki to catalog history. Here is the chance. I am watching this article almost constantly, and I hope others will cover my small periods of departure, this article isn't going to be damaged for any real amount of time, and pre-emptive protecting is counter-wiki. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 20:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC) :: UGO(Initiative supporter) has joined the War, GGA (Initiative) declares war (presumably on the League, ICP (League) declares war on the Initiative, FAN (Initiative) declares war (presumably on the League), OIN (League supporter) declares war on alliances that have attacked LUE, BTA (League supporter) declares war (presumably on the Initiative), LoSS (League) declares war on select Iniative alliances, ODS (ICP ally) declares war on the Initative, CDS (League) declares war on the Initiative, excepting GGA. ::Someone please add these nations if they are big enough onto the catergory or add them somewhere on the page. ::: All added. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 07:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Erm, just curious, shouldn't LSF be added onto The League side of the flags under other? Also technically Fark is in this war, but really they don't have much of a flag. I was thinking either of these images could be used however? http: //img293.imageshack.us/img293/3901/largefarkistancd4.png http: //img411.imageshack.us/img411/4488/farkjm9.png The LUE-Fark MDP event on the timeline is misleading. The announcement occurred after LUE had declared war on GOONS, as the threads linked to in that timeline prove. However, the MDP announcement comes before the LUE attack on the timeline. I've corrected the issue. Also, I question the relevance of including that on the timeline, since hostilites between LUE and GOONS had already commenced and the MDP had essentially no bearing on events. Bakunin's Dream 04:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC) :I'd say it demonstrated that Lue would defened Fark from everyone, and it is more official. Worth being there I think. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 05:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC) ::LUE had already demonstrated that previously, when it did defend them. The MDP was ex-post-facto.Bakunin's Dream 05:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC) :::Ah, but it defended them on grounds that they believed GOONS attacks on them to be unjustified. If Fark had grown and eventually been attacked by another alliance, it doesn't seem like LUE would have necessarily come to their aid, at best they wouldn't have been obligated. Now with the MDP, they will continue to protect Fark in the future regardless of this war unless something breaks the treaty (like agression from Fark). As I said before, "I'd say it demonstrated that Lue would defend Fark from everyone". -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 17:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC) ::::I'd say add it. It is one of the linchpins of LUE involvement. Later we can parse out irrelevant links. Salpta 17:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC) :::::It's not a linchpin of LUE involvement, though, since hostilities commenced before the MDP was announced ex-post-facto, and LUE said they would have done the same thing regardless. Bakunin's Dream 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Proposal: Replacing our entire DoW & Time line sections with Ferrous's Most Excellent bullet-point summary. (With his permission of course). Salpta 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC) New edit includes AOB Confederation's entry, forgot to put in summary. Should PPF really be listed under the League & Allies? It's just Opethian, and more of a joke than anything. One person's not really an alliance. Bakunin's Dream 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC) ::WE could have an independent nation section J Andres 02:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC) :::I wasn't aware the PPF had more than one member, as I've never seen anyone other than Opethian claim membership. He also has in his sig that he's the "first and only-ish" member. I had always assumed that the "ish" part was the joke, rather than the "only" part. Bakunin's Dream 03:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Nukes That's not the only nuke shot off for this war. Several on all sides have been hit with nukes. PPF is an alliance, whether its just Opethian or not. :A one-person alliance is a contradiction, and I would dispute including such in a list of combatants as POV, as it misleads the reader as to the actual size of the League's "bandwagon." However, if the PPF actually has multiple members, I suppose they would qualify (there really should be some sort of minimum size for recognition though. For lack of a better argument, come on). Bakunin's Dream 03:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC) :Source links to other nuke attacks and they will definitly be added in. I didn't realize PPF was only one member. An alliance requires "allies" of some kind, so until there are AT LEAST 2 members, it shouldnt' be listed with other alliances. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 17:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC) GATO's surrender As a member of GATO, I can personally say that BenPG's announcement was inapproporiate, and did not speak for GATO. He was out of line, and this should be referenced somewhere in the article, specifically under the "Beginning of the end" section. MTTezla 15:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC) :Understood...and thank you for that. I found the mention of the supposed GATO surrender and tried to investigate (that's why there's a ton of links...) I tried to at least put the pieces in one pile, even if I couldn't figure out how they went together. Perhaps as an historical note, this exact 'mixup' should be recorded, as it may have had an impact on the gameplay. I ran out of time on my investigation, but I think there's an official GATO statement on this...if I can just sort it out. (LOL) Again, thanks to the GATO member for pointing this out... ahhh...the fog of war! :) --Shaudawn (a.k.a. YV) 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC) ::Update: To the user of IP 141.150.16.128, if that was you who reported the fate of BenPG as being impeached, quitting GATO and going to GOONS please give me a reference. This could be potentially controversial and/or vandalism, especially since you left an IP address rather than register. Thanks! --Shaudawn (a.k.a. YV) 01:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC) That was me. I have evidence from the GATO forums, so I'm afraid I can't give you the link, but I can tell you without a doubt that he was brought up on impeachment charges, but left before the proceedings were over and joined GOONS. Again, I am sure on this. MTTezla 14:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I added a source as well - An official GATO statement on the CN forums, from the actual (new) Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vincent_Xander. MTTezla 14:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC) I note that User:68.205.143.2 has changed a part of the article regarding statements on behalf of various alliances. Before, I had what I thought was pretty neutral wording because 1) the GATO statement of defeat/surrender is in question and 2) the NAAC statement admitted it escallated the fighting, but never admits defeat or surrender. It makes me most nervous when unregistered IPs make changes...it seems too anonymous with a topic as controversial and/or biased as this one can get. I won't change it back, though, unless someone else of higher authority than I (which is pretty much anyone else!) has a say. --Shaudawn (a.k.a. YV) 02:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC) :Unregistered IPs have contributed a lot of great content to this wiki and as a whole have been helping out a lot on this article. I don't know what edit you are referring to (can you provide a diff?) but if there is factually incorrect material, then remove it. If you believe style could be better, it's a judgment call, basically if you think your edit makes the article better, meaning, more useful, npov, and neat, then go for it. Otherwise throw out your suggestions on the talk page. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 08:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC) :::Nothin' against unregistered IPs contributions...just make me nervous with hot-topic issues. As I was thinking about it, it really is no big deal to me. The user simply changed "On January 14th, many League leaders made statements on the war" to "On January 14th, many League leaders made statements of surrender and defeat to The Initiative". I thought since two of the articles could be debated to have said that, I also realize the previous comment was pretty vague. I dinked around too much to find the diff at the moment. I just wanted to make sure neutral POV was maintained...I just don't know if such a minor change warrents it. I'll keep a hands off for now an' sleep on it. Thanks for the help, Mason. --Shaudawn (a.k.a. YV) 09:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Timelines There seem to be a couple of timelines here. Again, ongoing events can be chaotic for reporters. I'm going to see if I can merge the two. The information I plan to remove is only the duplications. But some sort of cleanup might help to remove some of the confusion. (Personally, I wonder if even the title "Beginning of the End" is biased. I purpose a timeline devoid of editorial titling.) --Shaudawn (a.k.a. YV) 20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC) :Okay...I did a little cleanup. I placed the first part of the war before the GATO pseudo-surrender. I tried to clean up a little of the controversial language by replacing it with more neutral POV language. (I have no emotional investment in any alliance...I'm too new to the politics of CN!) --Shaudawn (a.k.a. YV) 22:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC) :Can't say I can tell exactly what edits you made (haven't gotten the chance to look through the diffs), but the way it's layed out right now looks quite good, and I agree with your comment on "beginning of the end". Nice changes. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 08:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC) League Surrender I'm adding the League's surrender, or at least admittance of defeat, into the article. I'll make it as neutral as possible. MTTezla 14:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Answer me Is FARK still an alliance? :apparantly -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 17:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC) :: Then we won. ::: Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). ::: The conclusion states that the League lost, because... they admitted defeat. It also states that LUE is still fighting, FARK is in the same position is was going into this war, it was targeted for removal by GOONS, it still is, I don't know who "we" is referring by your comment (you should give some more explanation), but it'd be a little crazy to say the League, or LUE, won. At best, they didn't lose yet. Since we can't tell the future, the best thing we can put in the conclusion box is "Lue still fighting". Is that wrong? -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 23:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC) NoRway Incident Extremely informative article overall, but the link to NoRway Incident redirects to Nordreich, which has fairly little coverage of this incident. Perhaps an entirely new page should be written to cover this incident, which provided a few days of uproar and indirectly led to GWII? :I think the Nordreich article could have more info on it, it was a very hot topic on that article and brought up a lot of arguing, the form of the section when I last saw it was informative enough without providing bias, feel free to append to that section, but I don't think another page is needed. -- Mason11987 (T - - -CN) 17:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)